3 ms·
@startuprule (won't let me reply directly to you). That article talks about counterparty risk, has nothing to do with whether GS themselves needed a bailout. In
by jamiequint 17y ago
@startuprule (won't let me reply directly to you). That article talks about counterparty risk, has nothing to do with whether GS themselves needed a bailout. In fact it speaks to the fact that they probably didn't see this crisis coming, as the biggest trading partner of AIG they would have known their counterparty exposure and tried to reduce it ahead of time.
- dsplittgerber 17y agoGS needed a bail-out. Pleae read Too Big To Fail by Andrew Ross Sorkin, or any other detailed book about the financial crisis, and you will learn that GS had massive trust issues in the market. The 'bail-out' for GS got done primarily for the supposed trust in the stability and balance sheets of financial institutions it signaled - it was mostly for bridge financing (disregarding banks who actually were in deep shit all along, which GS was not one of). Yes, the exact details of the bail-out were shoved down their throat. Question being if GS would have made it at all if Treasury had waited any longer.